Background articles/ info:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html

On one hand , we have to support the Taiwanese Democracy over the human rights stifling communist giant. On the other hand, economically, we get more imports from China than Taiwan and export more to China. One could easily argue that China is considerably more important to the US economy than Taiwan. Is it in the best interests of the US to fully support Taiwan?

Are you in favor of selling arms to Taiwan...or is it wiser not to anger the Chinese?

Would you be for the US defending Taiwan should China decide they've had enough and try to forcefully annex it?

Sounds like a Ultima starting question...
Will you follow your honor to protect democracy, or will you have compassion for all jobs created with such a huge customer. Choose wisely Avatar.

This is a tough one for sure. From an ideological standpoint, the promotion and defense of democracy has been a centerpiece of stated US policy for a long time. For us to sit idly by should China invade Taiwan would put the lie to that policy and expose it to be mere lip service. On the other hand, military support for Taiwan will eventually ensure there is another armed conflict between the US and China which would be disastrous for the world economy.

Defending Taiwan would be the moral thing to do (not necessarily the wise thing). Unfortunately for Taiwan, no one else in the western world would even think of assisting them besides the US. Most countries have been thoroughly bribed to look the other way and don't want to jeopardize their economic ties with China for the sake of ideals. It is unlikely IMO that the US could prevent Chinese conquest of Taiwan alone, so I predict we would probably follow suit and just make ineffectual diplomatic protests while carrying on business as usual. Our ambiguous support of Taiwan seems to be designed to only buy time, hoping that China itself becomes more democratic so that the eventual annexation of Taiwan becomes more tolerable for us.

Great post Gulor...I agree the moral thing is to defend the democracy, but that wouldn't be in the best interests of the US.

A tough line to define...where does our moral obligation cross our obligation to act in the best interests of our people.

In the past we may have drawn that line to close to the moral side than the best interests side. It's very hard to define that line as well. In the case of Viet Nam I think we were trying to make sure communism didn't spread....but we weren't necessarily defending very democratic government. That war may not have been in the best interests of the country (economically, socially, loss of life). On the other hand the, one could argue, Korean War was in the best interests of the US. At the time it may not have looked that way, but I think a pretty good argument could be made that it ended up being in our best interests to fight that war. We had a solid moral reason to fight.

The Taiwan question is befuddling....Pres. Bush does maintain a very tough support (which I agree with) but like you said our support of late has been ambigious. I worry that this ambigious support may spur China to act...especially looking at Tawains agressive pursuit of more arms. I can't really decide whether I would support the use of US forces in a fairly vain attempt to stop China from invading....but would hate to see a arguably very successful example of democratic success, fall to an agressive communist state.

A tough line to define...where does our moral obligation cross our obligation to act in the best interests of our people.The only moral obilgation our government has is to act in the best interests of our people.

That is the purpose of our government- to ensure the long term welfare of the citizens of this country.

HOW it should do that is open to debate.


If we wanted to ensure the protection of Taiwan, we should offer them the chance to become a protecterate of the US (Think Puerto Rico). Before anyone asks: "Yes, I know how infeasable that is."

If we are unwilling to do that, we should let it go.

Good point Esbat...that was poorly stated.


We have no treaty, that I know of saying, we have to come to the aid of Tawain. Probably because it hasn't been deemed of greater importance than what China represents ecomonically and otherwise. It hasn't been in "best" interest of the US to enter into an agreement like that.

Defining "best interests" I guess is really the question.

Is it in the best interests of the US not to let China invade and enslave Taiwan? (I know, enslave may be too harsh for some)

I think it is...but to what degree over the harm to the US and world in trying to defend it.

If we are unwilling to make it a protectorate or enter into some kind of agreement to protect it...should we sell arms to Taiwan and continue piss of China?

China doesn't "need" Taiwan anymore. Look at where most every consumer grade item is made now. Certainly not in the US of A. The Chinese have had their own industrial revolution, and now manufacture...well..almost EVERYTHING. I even saw an American flag with a little tab that said "Made In China" on it. You can add the 100% Chinese control of Hong Kong now as well into the formula, so everything that once said "Made in Hong Kong" now proudly boasts to be made in China.

To make the long story short, the Chinese peddled enough of their cheap crap on the rest of the world to afford Western industrial engineering consultants, processes and tooling. Most of their factories are new, state of the art facilities that employ very few people compared to their output, and those employees are not paid the wage scales of other countries...because they don't have to be. Its still a communist country where many of the workers needs the government picks up the check for. It doesn't hurt that the government has vested interest in the factories and other businesses that are making fortunes. Now you have a solid Chinese middle class and the rise of super modern cities boasting the tallest structures in the world. If anyone is to be the next economic and military super power...its the Chinese.

So, why would the Chinese want Taiwan again? To reunite "old long lost realitives" maybe? China has way too much to lose and nothing to gain by making a grab for Taiwan, as its a good bet that all the Western companies that contract their manufacturing with the Chinese might suddenly find it hard to do business, and everyone loses.

[QUOTE=LummusL So, why would the Chinese want Taiwan again? To reunite "old long lost realitives" maybe? China has way too much to lose and nothing to gain by making a grab for Taiwan, as its a good bet that all the Western companies that contract their manufacturing with the Chinese might suddenly find it hard to do business, and everyone loses.[/QUOTE]

The truth of the matter is that even with all the technological and industrial advances being made in China, there has not been as of yet a corresponding cultural advance across the generations. Honor, saving face, means everything to the old school chinese, who are still the power in the chinese government.

If the decision is ever made by China to bring Taiwan back into the fold, it will more than likely be based on saving face as much as any political or economic consideration.

And, I actually have been surprised that they have not made their move while the US military was stretched so thinly with Iraq and the war against "terrorism". Having a carrier group in the area made it a bit more difficult prior to Iraq, due to the potential for an errant round causing an international incident.

In the long run, I believe the government will side with economic principles over moral; the shift to giving big business consideration over the moral consideration of protecting the citizens should be a clear indicator that this country has changed it's focus.

For the Chinese communist leadership, grabbing Taiwan is a matter of face. Why else would they continue building up forces aimed directly at Taiwan and threaten invasion everytime there is even a hint Taiwan will openly vote for nationhood? It irks them that a "nation" with nationalist Chinese roots prospers a few miles away. It is also a glaring contrast to their own style of government that they claim to be the only way China can be ruled. If you get rid of the contrast, people will be less likely to press for change/reform.

You are right about one thing though, if China attacks Taiwan everybody loses. Manufacturing of, well, nearly everything will be effected. Fortunes will be lost by both sides (and a lot of bystanders also). More importantly, the loss of life could dwarf previous wars if things spiral out of control as they easily could.

I feel like I do on the Hong Kong issue, that for one, we should never have given it up on such relaxed terms (yeah, the 99 year lease ran out, but it had terms). Our legacy to Hong Kong - its surge in trade, economy and its fine democracy - every year are in danger of China's feeble "one system, two economy" promise.
While I eagerly away the election outcomes (democratic elections? Yeah, right) about Taiwan, well it's one of those, like someone mentioned above, "saving face" things for China, it would appear. Government and military officials in China are very aggressive about it, even at one point drafting up how they would invade and crush any autonomous break for independence with something like 40, 000 troops within a month. And their opinions on Western intervention?

Quite clear.

For a while now I've, ever since realising and reading where the future of power lies, been awfully nervuos and cautious about the China question.
I just don't sense good things from that direction. And I definately see the future of Taiwan intwined with that direction.

We involve ourselves in almost every other "conflict" similar to this one. But we are staying out of it for $$$ reasons. Any time there is a invasion we are there. I think if we are going to "protect democracy and ensure freedom" it should be a universal truth not a truth that is biased due to fiancial implications. If they want to be free, they should be.

We would suffer finacially from a conflict with China but it works both ways so would they.

I do understand that is about saving face/ honor to some of the older people. But perhaps this conflict will last 1 or 2 generations when less traditionalists will be running things in the government.

We could potentially suffer a lot more hardships than ones dealing with finances if we got into a conflict with China. These guys have a lot more guns than Iraq did, and our last brush-up with them didn't go so well. While I definitely sympathize with the cause of the Taiwanese, avoiding conflict with China is in the best interests of the vast majority of this planet.

We could potentially suffer a lot more hardships than ones dealing with finances if we got into a conflict with China. These guys have a lot more guns than Iraq did, and our last brush-up with them didn't go so well. While I definitely sympathize with the cause of the Taiwanese, avoiding conflict with China is in the best interests of the vast majority of this planet.To me this sounds sort of familiar, this time it's the taiwanese, then they might decide on another neighboring country. These people aren't really related to you so, even though you don't really gain by not intervening, you would probably lose by doing so. Who knows if they will stop here, say that they go for another country, and then one. At what point do you draw the line?
I wonder, did people reason like you when the germans started removing the jews?

If China invaded anyone right now, it would be out of shear stupidity. We all play(ed) EQ and know of risk verses reward. In the military they call it Operational Risk Management. Pretty much is states if you are going to risk your ass doing something stupid the payoff better be big. Taiwan isn't worth it. Even taking Japan would not be worth it. China is too intertwined in the gobal economy now, and any stupid move they might make will pretty much have global economic reprocussions at the very least. China also has over 2000 nukes, some of which are pearched on rockets that can hit pretty much anywhere. If you can launch a sattelite or put a man into space, you can launch MIRVs and have them re-enter the atmosphere where ever your guidance technology dictates.

China has it pretty damn good right now. Its been a case where cooler heads prevailing has paid off and hopefully it will continue to be the case, inspite of little brushes like what happened with our P-3 Orion spy plane a few years ago.

I wonder, did people reason like you when the germans started removing the jews?

What? How can you even compare the two? At the time, Germany was a superpower bent on world domination. They were, both directly and indirectly, an obvious threat to most of the planet. While I could be wrong, I doubt that's the case with China.

At what point do you draw the line?

If you're asking me when I think it makes sense to enter a conflict, I 'draw the line' when it's in the best interests of both the United States and other involved nations; I don't believe that's the case here.

I'm surprised a few of you call the government in http://www.junglewave.com/~jason/aro_boards/takashi/Taiwan.gif (Taiwan) a "democracy." If a politically-corrupt and dirty network of colluding politicians can be called a "democracy," then, yes, Taiwan is a democracy.

If any of you recall the Taiwanese presidential election of 2004, you will remember the controversy surrounding it. Votes were not counted, http://www.junglewave.com/~jason/aro_boards/takashi/ChenShuiBian.gif (Chen Shui-Bian) was accused of staging a sympathy vote, and emotions were running high. You will further remember that Chen Shui-Bian's referendum for an official declaration of Taiwanese independence did not pass.

Opinion polls suggest that between 70 to 80 percent of Taiwanese support the status quo, to leave Taiwan's status exactly the way that it is and to leave the issue of whether to become independent or reunify for a future date.

However, in my capacity as an American-Born Chinese (ABC), http://www.junglewave.com/~jason/aro_boards/takashi/MeiGuoShengDeZhongGuoRen.gif, I strongly feel that Taiwan needs to be reunited with http://www.junglewave.com/~jason/aro_boards/takashi/ZhongGuo.gif (China). It seems only natural; Chinese people have always been with Chinese people. Don't forget that Taiwan has been a part of China for 2,000 years of recorded history--a province of Imperial China. China doesn't need to integrate Taiwan for economic reasons. You are absolutely right to believe that China "doesn't need" Taiwan anymore. They only want Taiwan to be reunited with China because of China's long history of togetherness.

My parents even share the same view. They don't refer to themselves as Taiwanese even though they were born on Taiwan. They call themselves Chinese, and on Taiwan they refer to themselves as http://www.junglewave.com/~jason/aro_boards/takashi/WaiShengRen.gif (Waisheng Ren), or Foreign-Born Chinese.

I used to believe communism was wrong. But I look at China and consider the facts: nearly everyone is fed, nearly everyone can make money. And closer to the point, Chinese people have always been Chinese people. Do we really need to be seperated? Can we not say "our land"? Are things in China really that bad after all? Is China really communist after all?

China only needs time. By recent economic data and predictions, China will pass the United States in most economic numbers by year 2020 (unless something drastic happens). Who knows--G.K. Chesterton wrote, "All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change." China may eventually realize that a formal democratic government is required.

Anyway, I strongly recommend watching http://www.junglewave.com/~jason/aro_boards/takashi/YingXiong.gif (Ying Xiong, or "Hero"). You might gain some insight into the theory of "One China." And lastly, I hope the United States doesn't intervene. Let China and Taiwan handle it on their own time. In his farewell address, George Washington said, "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world," and that "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Let's hope the U.S. continues to take Washington's advice.

Formal democracy will never work in China, based upon what is required as population control alone. How can you have a democratic government and still maintain a limit on births? Also, China would still be a very exclusive club, much like its always been. Could you imagine a stream of imigration to China? There are already billions living there, and those billions still reguard most outsiders as barbarians, even if of asian ancestry. That alone will probably be why they will succeed. A country who are pretty much one homogenious culture with common goals who have a main directive of taking care of themselves the best way they can while keeping out of trouble with everyone else can't fail. China isn't balled up having to pander to minorities or special interest groups or questioning the legality, morality, and whether or not some part of every decision might offend someone like here in the States. They just do it and thats all there is. They certainly know the value of making money and they know how to take care of themselves with it. Just play Lineage 2 and experience all the Chinese money farmers in that game. The only drawback is that you might end up with a total lack of creativity.

The United States has that going for it still. You can come here from anywhere, work hard, be creative and ambitious and you have all the rights in the world to pursue it to a successful end. Our tolerance and open society is our greatest strength as well as our greatest weakness.

The very fact that Taiwan's population has a voice (i.e.through referendums, etc.) makes it a democracy. As far as the politicians go, at least there are opposing parties in Taiwan with different policies. Yes there is corruption amongst the politicians, but show me a country where there isn't. There is no such influence on policy by the normal citizens where China is concerned and only a single all powerful party (just as corrupt as those in Taiwan, maybe even moreso since they answer only to themselves). The very fact the people of Taiwan seem to favor the status quo should tell you the whole notion of "one Chinese people" is over rated. They *want* to be left alone by the mainland as far as their governance goes. They are intimately aware any declaration of independance will ensure an attack and subjugation by China so they avoid doing so. Better for them if things remain as they are.

In the long term, no one really minds if Taiwan is absorbed into China as long as the two are more closely matched in terms of style of government. Hopefully by maintaining the status quo, that convergence will happen over time. Right now they are far apart in terms of personal freedoms that we take for granted in the west, and for China to seize Taiwan right now would be a tragedy for their rights. We already see official intimidation and curtailing of some rights in Hong Kong. Why would Taiwan be different?

China has a big challenge taking care of its rural population right now. They are being left in the dust as far as development goes, so you have to be careful not to take the state of the special economic zones as the state of China overall. They are in much better shape than they were under the idiotic economic policies of the past, but they have a long way to go yet.

Personally I don't think China's growth will be sustainable over the long haul. Much of it has been driven by manufacturing using cheap labor, and other parts of the world are beginning to compete with that advantage. I have noticed a recent trend here in the states (and in Europe) to shift manufacturing out of the far east and into places like India or Ukraine. If that continues (and I have no reason to suspect it won't), then the business currently being directed to China will gradually subside, probably causing a slowdown in China's economic growth. Any conflict between China and Taiwan would certainly speed that process up.

As far as the US goes, the status quo is in our best interest as well. We do a lot of business in both Taiwan and China that would be trashed if a conflict broke out, even a conflict in which we played no part. Here's hoping for cool heads over there!

Formal democracy will never work in China, based upon what is required as population control alone. How can you have a democratic government and still maintain a limit on births? Also, China would still be a very exclusive club, much like its always been. Could you imagine a stream of imigration to China? There are already billions living there, and those billions still reguard most outsiders as barbarians, even if of asian ancestry. That alone will probably be why they will succeed. A country who are pretty much one homogenious culture with common goals who have a main directive of taking care of themselves the best way they can while keeping out of trouble with everyone else can't fail. China isn't balled up having to pander to minorities or special interest groups or questioning the legality, morality, and whether or not some part of every decision might offend someone like here in the States. They just do it and thats all there is. They certainly know the value of making money and they know how to take care of themselves with it. Just play Lineage 2 and experience all the Chinese money farmers in that game. The only drawback is that you might end up with a total lack of creativity.

The United States has that going for it still. You can come here from anywhere, work hard, be creative and ambitious and you have all the rights in the world to pursue it to a successful end. Our tolerance and open society is our greatest strength as well as our greatest weakness.Lummus, you are making several unwarranted claims here. How do you know democracy won't work? We don't have any empirical evidence to back that it won't work. The problem is, China has struggled greatly in the last hundred years. China lost war after war. Remember the open door policy? The only race to be actually excluded from immigration (Chinese Exclusion Act)? China couldn't go straight to a democracy; nor could it it satisfy a capitalist constituency. And does having limits on your freedom necessarly rule you out as a democracy? Look at our own country, we have limited freedom as well. No government in its current form is a true democracy.

If you look at the youth from China, they're all over our academic institutions. They are rapidly absorbing our knowledge, but at the same time, we are conditioning them to free thought. That is what makes the United States a democracy--freedom of thought (well, semi-free anyway).

And wouldn't you think that democracy would work even better for a homogenous population? Consider Japan, if you will. It works. Chinese people are not all the same, but we have many values we universally share.

I don't understand your Lineage reference. I never played it. Could you elaborate?

You had a decent post going until:

I used to believe communism was wrong. But I look at China and consider the facts: nearly everyone is fed, nearly everyone can make money. And closer to the point, Chinese people have always been Chinese people. Do we really need to be seperated? Can we not say "our land"? Are things in China really that bad after all? Is China really communist after all?

Are you crazy?

You don't think communism is wrong now?

Are things really that bad?

You're talking about the country that forcibly annexed and systematically destroyed Tibet. You're talking about the political ideology that has killed more people in its purges than Hitler even dreamed about. You've already forgotten(perhaps you just aren't old enough to remember) the students being run over by tanks because they had the gall to speak out.

Finally, yes, China really is communist after all.

You had a decent post going until:


Are you crazy?

You don't think communism is wrong now?

Are things really that bad?

You're talking about the country that forcibly annexed and systematically destroyed Tibet. You're talking about the political ideology that has killed more people in its purges than Hitler even dreamed about. You've already forgotten(perhaps you just aren't old enough to remember) the students being run over by tanks because they had the gall to speak out.

Finally, yes, China really is communist after all.Crist0, you have no idea. Yes, I may sound mad by simply saying that communism isn't bad, but I think you need to look deeper into the mentality of China's people. For thousands of years, China was controlled by warlord after warlord, master after master. Millions were illiterate; most worked as feudal slaves. The situation seemed hopeless for many.

During World War II, my father's side grandfather was conscripted into the Nationalist army--the side known as the Republic of China (eventually fledeing to Taiwan). He was illiterate, worked as a tailor, and barely made enough to feed his children. He almost tried to stay in China.

Don't be so closed-minded. You can't just put a capitalist or democratic system in a country that was very poor. Yes, communism has represented some of the worst in us--and don't think that I don't know that it hasn't. The Cultural Revolution was responsible for the destruction of thousands of historic and cultural artifacts. The Great Leap Forward was responsible for China's overpopulation and insufficient production of food.

The Chinese have noticed there was a problem with communism. Not everyone is the same. People have different talents; people don't want to work the same jobs as everyone else. Humans are not created equally; that is backed by scientific fact. Deng Xiaoping saw this problem; he changed China. Thats why he opened it up to foreigners. That's why China promote capitalism and investment. He is the reason that China embraces capitalism.

A few years ago, I spoke to a Chinese Communist party official on the train. We talked about China's system, and he knew about its shortcomings. He knew China needed to change.

And it has.

The China of today is not Mao Zedong's China. It is a new China, full of growth and vigor.

I think you are making some very unfair claims. Tibet, although not a special administrative region such as Hong Kong or Macao, is an autonomous region--meaning the government does not and will not interve. Tibet has been a part of China for many hundreds of years. After the Ming dynasty, Tibet became an imperial province. They were granted autonomy for thousands of years.

What, are you saying the United States has never forcefully annexed a region? We're a "democracy." Columbus "discovered" America. We rightfully took the Native Americans' land.

You have been brainwashed by our government to think negatively about China. What, has the Chinese government wiped out the Tibetans? Not only have they given Tibetans billions of dollars in financial support, but they have also given them autonomy. Hitler promoted cultural genocide. Did Hitler give the Jews billions of dollars of financial support? Did Hitler give the Jews autonomy? I don't think so.

Communism is not a bad idea, really. It's a great idea, but the only problem is we include humans into it. And that means bad things happen.

Crist0, you have no idea.
Really?

How old are you?

Did you ever live in communist China?

If so, for how long?


I think you are making some very unfair claims, especially with Tibet. Tibet, although not a special administrative region such as Hong Kong or Macao, is an autonomous Region--meaning the government does not and will not interve.
Really?

So the Dalai Lama just lives in India instead of Tibet for his health?

I suppose you're going to deny the massive transfer of Chinese into Tibet following it's forceful occupation?

How about the use of Tibet for nuclear waste dumping and weapons production?

Link me credible evidence that they've done those things to Tibet. Then I might concede. Explain to me "forceful occupation." I suppose I should say the same about Iraq.

And Tibet's situation is improving every day. Do your homework.

China wants Dalai Lama to get positive message

BEIJING - Chinese officials have confirmed that supporters of the Dalai Lama are visiting China and said they hoped the visitors would take a positive message back to the Tibetan spiritual leader.

Officials in Washington said on Tuesday that the Dalai Lama's special envoy had arrived in China for talks on the exiled leader's aspirations for Tibetan autonomy, the third such visit in three years.

The United States welcomed the visit of the envoy, Mr Lodi Gyari, and said in a statement it hoped it could lead to substantive dialogue after tentative contacts in recent months.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan played down the visit, declining to give details, provide the visitors' names or even describe them as envoys. But he added that he would like the message they took back to be positive.

'We hope through them, the Dalai Lama gains an overall and objective understanding of us and the situation of the motherland,' Mr Kong said.

China's second largest trading partner, the 25-nation European Union, echoed Washington in welcoming the visit.

It said in a statement it also hoped the visit would encourage meaningful dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lama's representatives that would lead to a peaceful and sustainable solution for Tibet.

The International Campaign for Tibet, a Washington-based advocacy group of which Mr Gyari is a board member, has said that the Tibetans hoped talks could go beyond the confidence-building meetings of previous visits. Dialogue was suspended in 1993 but has been quietly revived in the past 18 months, suggesting a subtle shift in Chinese policy. -- Reuters

So you are denying that they invaded Tibet(forcing Tibetans to flee as well as their government), denying that they resettled large amounts of Chinese there, and denying that they use Tibet for nuclear weapons production and waste dumping..is that correct?


http://www.tibet.com/

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/China/02/bishop/bishop.htm

http://www.atc.org.au/tibet/nuclear.html

http://www.tibet.com/Eco/eco3.html

Would you like me to link more sources?

Please answer my earlier questions, as you seem to be incredibly naive: How old are you, did you ever live in communist China, and if so for how long?

You haven't provided a claim, you've only given me warrants. I will investigate the veracity of your articles.

I should also add, I did not say China has never harmed Tibet. They have, and they admit their mistakes.

Put it this way: communism or no communism, that's not the point of my discourse. The United States over the course of its history has done the same to Native Americans.

If I were to use your standard to judge the goodness of a country, the United States wouldn't be ranked so well. Slavery, so much for freedom. Plessy vs. Fergusson, so much for equality. Native Americans, so much for their land.

I have not denied anything. Tell me what I have denied. Don't put words in my mouth.

The past is the past. Live with it.

Those are personal questions.

Those questions are incredibly relevant, and hardly personal(you can duck the age one if you like).

You are claiming I have no idea what China is like, however if you have never lived there then it's safe to say you have about as much(or as little, if you prefer) of an idea(less, actually, if you didn't even know the things I posted) as I do.

I've lived in Taiwan for 3 years during my childhood; China, 2 years during my college years.

Ok time to retort:

In responce to this:

you're the biggest racist I've seen in awhileThat some anon person left me. Excuse me if I don't paint everyone as being 100% perfect if they arn't my demographic. Unless your name is God or Jesus Christ or who ever you hold to be divine, everyone is just another human being with faults. People who know me understand that if I call someone an asshole, its because they are....an asshole. It doesn't matter who their parents are or what country they are from or what religion or sexual preference etc etc so on and so forth. I am fair to everyone and I like to think we are all mature enough to understand that here on the internet we are all just fellow Homo Sapiens of the Planet Motherfucking Earth. Anyway, I am 50% German, 25% Polish and the rest is Irish. I don't think I need to eleborate on the stupidity commited by my ancestry. Maybe its good that I just consider myself an American and don't give too much of a shit about what some past dead generations did. I don't feel it reflects poorly upon me now in the real present day. This is a topic about China and if someone got offended over something considered politically incorrect because I didn't paint a rosy picture of China or Chinese people, then that is your problem. If you feel you are owed an appology, than appologize to yourself for being such a hyper-sensative twit. I have used no racial slurs or anything of that like. If you have a problem, report me to the moderators and have them ban me if they feel it is warranted.

As for how people might feel towards me saying that democracy won't work in China: Is China ready to accept that a democractic government will more than likely look at how much unhappiness that their policys towards families may possibly cause? Is China ready to have that overturned by the people's new found power? One might perhaps argue that China will need a more open market structure to continue to prosper, pretty much allowing private enterprise to flourish. You don't exactly need a democratic nation to have a strong economy, and that is what China seems to prove. Otherwise, I really would like to see how a democratic China can handle something as intrusive as a government having authority over what sex of child is considered ok and placing limits on family size.

It seems alot of things that the Chinese government does more or less because they HAVE to. They have a HUGE population wich must be fed and gainfully employed in some kind of productive activity. China also is unfortunately not blessed with geography that is 100% friendly to human settlement. The Chinese government doesn't seem to be evil in its basic want to provide security for its people. Due to a rather isolationist view towards the rest of the world, China fell behind the curve a bit, and it took some hard decisions to pull China out of the Imperial Medieval times. Yah, they have done so foul things along the way, but so has most governments. Since I am not Chinese and thus have no right to discuss such things without being called a racist, then maybe I can talk about some things more familiar. The United States government pretty much slaughtered all the indiginous people of the United States, and then put the reminder on the shittiest land possible. The reason being that those past Americans want more cheap land to exploit.

I don't understand your Lineage reference. I never played it. Could you elaborate?Lineage 2. Its another online game. It has a pretty strong asian following since it was developed by a Korean studio. There are quite a few Chinese players. Most are nice, but there tends to be a common...bit of discomfort with Chinese players of very high level sitting in N00b areas killing all the monsters with bots to farm the currency in that game. Yah, its nothing new to EQ players. Farming "gasp" what a unique concept, right? Well, they will also take the stuff YOUR own kills drop, as it will just drop on the ground kind of like Diablo instead of being on a corpse you can lock. If you try to do something about it, they kill you. Also, they chat all day in Chinese in the "Shout" channel. Non-stop Chinese, when written with a Latin based alphabet, tends to be grating after a while, and there is no real ignore command in that game. Now plenty of other people farm in that game from all over the PLANET, before some shithead calls me a racist. It just happens that the Chinese tend to be the most arrogent and unpolite towards the rest of the players.

Remember the open door policy? The only race to be actually excluded from immigration (Chinese Exclusion Act)?
The United States has some real proud history....of stupidity. We also practiced segregation of people that were ALREADY citizens. That was still going on 40 years ago, which is in the general scheme of things...recent. It has not been clouded by the passing of the generation that struggled to overturn it. They are still alive and kicking and hope that todays generations don't undue all their hard won victories.

China has taken a long hard road, and now they are enjoying the beginnings of success. Who in their right mind would wish a country to fail? Please, may your people starve and die! Would you find anyone saying that? Probably not, unless they are some twisted piece of shit who doesn't understand their own Humanity.

You're talking about the country that forcibly annexed and systematically destroyed Tibet. As did the US to ... ehm .. Iraq maybe?

You're talking about the political ideology that has killed more people in its purges than Hitler even dreamed about. As did the US with their political ideology

You've already forgotten(perhaps you just aren't old enough to remember) the students being run over by tanks because they had the gall to speak out. And I guess you have forgotten all the dead japanses people, the dead iraqi kids, the dead vietnamese kids ... should I go on?

All this has nothing to do with communism, it has to do with opression and it doesn't matter where you look, opression is everywhere.
Maybe we all use different reasons to kill, that does not mean that our killing is more valid then theirs .. Killing never is.

Another thing that for whatever reason bugged me:

And wouldn't you think that democracy would work even better for a homogenous population? Consider Japan, if you will. It works.Before 1945, Japan had an emperor and something of a parliment. It was mostly the emperor, who seemed to feel he needed to have an actual empire, that was the primary force of government during those times. Japan became democratic mostly because they were a conquered land, later occupied and then rebuilt...by Americans. They were...and still are, an occupied nation. We have many bases there and we have a forward deployed carrier group there. Vist Okinawa. They will tell you all about how much they love having Kadena Air Force base there, along with countless numbers of Marines or a bunch of drunk sailors from the Kitty Hawk. We would put a nuclear carrier there if we had our way to be sure, but Japan is a nuclear free zone. Our government tells them that they are there for their protection in case of a conflict with North Korea (Or China, or to aid Taiwan. Its not pretty any way you slice it). Still, as much as it helps the economy, most Okinawans and Japanese would just assume say "Joe, go home".

Would they have selected democracy anyway if there had never been an American influence? Who knows. So yes, it does work..because it was forced upon them by an occupying force. Fortunately, it is a success story and Japan is very much for the better for it. One can only guess that some feel such an event can happen in Iraq as well. As for China, they reserve the rights to decide for themselves.

Not to hijack the thread but ...

/hijack

Maybe we all use different reasons to kill, that does not mean that our killing is more valid then theirs .. Killing never is
So if someone breaks into my home armed with a weapon, threatens my family, thats not a good reason to blow his ass away with my .45?

So if someone breaks into my home armed with a weapon, threatens my family, thats not a good reason to blow his ass away with my .45? You understood that right.

Blow the guy away. You are threatened with bodily harm if the guy is armed and if the guy invaded your home by means of force and threatened to shoot you, your wife or kids, then yah. His life is forfeit.

Are things really that bad?

You're talking about the country that forcibly annexed and systematically destroyed Tibet. You're talking about the political ideology that has killed more people in its purges than Hitler even dreamed about. You've already forgotten(perhaps you just aren't old enough to remember) the students being run over by tanks because they had the gall to speak out.
You know if ppl were trying to take over the white house, I bet the US would roll out the tanks and national guards too. Tinamen square is like the lawns in front of the white house. If you got over 10k people who has their minds made up to take over the white house, humm what would the US army do?

Remember LA riot(Rodney King)? Also did you know the eve of y2k while driving from LA to vegas along the railroads next to Hwy 15 there was atleast 100 tanks loaded on trains? geez I wonder if they are gonna use those tanks if a riot does break out for y2k in LA. Also all the aquaducts in LA/OC days before y2k were drained, I guess they were prepared for the tanks to roll in through the aquaduct since the freeway would probably be jammed up.

Anyways I'm chinese, and I truely believe China needs a communist government. I guess different races need different kind of government, if you give democracy to chinese ppl I believe they'll just fuck the system up. Just look at Russia, they're doing really well w/ democracy :devil I just came back from a 1 month trip to China, I like how the new China is becoming. It's really blossoming, unlike the times when my family immigrated to the US 18 years ago.

Anyways I'm chinese, and I truely believe China needs a communist government. I guess different races need different kind of government, if you give democracy to chinese ppl I believe they'll just fuck the system up. So you're just a fucked up Chinese commie living in the US huh? You and your family should think about going back home then, before you fuck up our democracy.

Seriously, this is the most racist, condescending post by someone I have ever read on the Internet.

enough of us agree that china wants taiwan out of a idelogical reasons to control a island that no country every really had control over...

yes, taiwan was never under any real control of china. the pre communist era saw a few attempts to annex the island but a combination of naval weather disasters and the locals fighting them off. for the most part, china left the natives of taiwan to their own devices and just marked it on a map as territory.

now here's a theory that poped into my head and relates to china's idelogical motives. now a days, most of taiwan can trace their family lines back to china within a few generations, being the offspring of the pro democratic chinese that fled the mainland.

backtrack a bit: and what's the distinction between a native taiwanese from 500 years or more ago with a chinese of the same era? probably not much outside of social structure (the okinawan's consider themselves different from the rest of japan also).

so now most of taiwan are only different than mainland by way of politics. so when you think of china wanting to reunifiy, it can't be so much as the land (but would end an old pre commie issue) as it would be reunifiying the chinese who fled to the island.

so they have the motivation to do it, and the resources. but in the drive to be come a world power they've tied their hands a bit by having the eyes of the world watching them. and as well they have been more conservative communists than the russians were back in the 50s. aside from taking over tibet (i suspect to crush buddist influence that could of been a threat, but that's just an half cocked guess) and getting tawain, they've haven't made any land grabs for power.

as for our involvement, for us to come to military aid to taiwan in the event of a assault by china would come as a moral cause to help a fellow democracy. with Bush in power, that's a possibility. but the way the world is set up now with economics being the greater factor, neither America or China has much room to flex muscle before backlash of economics to hit.

now on the idea that china needs communisim....could be. the country is diverse enough that if it went democratic, you could see chunks of the country break off into smaller countries (we're destinied for a Berserkastan at this rate) like Russia had happen to them. but a movement exists and grows despite the communist goverment's arresting people who voice a different ideal, block internet access to commie friendly sites (I've heard that the chinese have their own dedicated, and isolated, server) and a fairly effective propaganda machine running.

So you're just a fucked up Chinese commie living in the US huh? You and your family should think about going back home then, before you fuck up our democracy.

Seriously, this is the most racist, condescending post by someone I have ever read on the Internet.
Umm racist? yeah sure, I'm racist against my own ppl. How about us american's leave other countries alone and let them take care of themselves. I mean come on the US is like a big bully trying to get every country to be democratic. Have you thought that maybe some countries likes the way their country is handling themselves. China's quality of living has gone way up. I truely believe if you put a democratic system into China it will destabilize China, ALSO it will break China up into multiple smaller countries. Just like how all the little countries on the left side of Russia broke off into their own countries. Do you know how many tribes and dialects there is in China? I would guess probably over 2000 dialects. I guess that's what the US wants, to destabilize China, just like Russia, because they are a threat to the US.

Hey Akipt why don't u take a trip to China and tell me shitty the communist party is in China. You'll be amaze how gradually the change is there. Go there every 4 years and u won't even recognize the places you have been to, cause it's all transforming daily. Take that hardcore America ideology outta your ass and maybe you'll see my point. For gods sake go take a month vacation in china and travel around before you tell me how shitty communism is.

i don't think destablization is in the grander plans of the US, it's just an event that tends to happen. It's an unintended feature of democracy. i wouldn't be suprised if there were thousdands of differen't chinese dialects and cultural variants in china, which would feed off the idea of being their own nation. now with the US, the majority of the country had enough of the same cultural identity to remain the US, except for the civil war ideals clashed.

maybe the mass of china can be slowly conditioned to have a national identity that can work beyond communisim (consider that most communist regimes aren't compatible with freedom of speech, or certian democratic ideas).

the pure idea of how communism would be wonderful, but the human condition makes it difficult. the goverment provides necessities for it's people, but the problem comes when you have a vastly diffence in opinion. i can't speak for the pro democratice folks that activly speak out inside of china, but the impression i get is that if you speak out against the government you get such a pummeling into submission (either figurativly or literaly).

i probably could yap on more, but i'll save it for the replies to pick out more suitable words instead of rambling.

that if you speak out against the government you get such a pummeling into submission I saw protestors getting the crap beaten out of them in the US for speaking their minds aswell .. And the difference is?

Guys, while I appreciate the intelligent debate, let's not make this a NAG thread.

For one, stop with the racist comments. The next person who brings up any kind of racist comment--even if he or she believes he is qualified to make a comment about his or her own race--in this or any other Ayonae Ro forum will have a moderator note added and a racism warning (3 warning points). Thanks for your cooperation.

Making judgements about other races is just not cool.

Once again, continue the discussion with civility. I truly enjoy reading your thoughts and reactions. Debate, argue, and inspire, but don't be uncivilized.

Takashi, why don't you actually state what is in your vieled threat by adding that anyone who does not whole heartedly agree with you on every aspect of your views on China will be branded a racist and reported to the moderators? If anyone ruined this thread, it was your being a pretensious asshole, even going as far as to use Chinese writing in your post. Thanks but no thanks for the attempts to educate the ignorant.

Sorry for the spelling errors.

Question for you, what would happen if you took a Sandwich board sign, wrote I hate Bush (or Kerry, pick a politician you don't like) and walked around down town in your local city USA with it.

Now take that to China, and try it there using the names of your local politicians, whats going to happen?

Lummus, read the last page. This is not a NAG thread. All I ask is that people remain civil with the discussion.

Dear Takashi,
Please answer the fucking question.

Sincerely
Elemak

Question for you, what would happen if you took a Sandwich board sign, wrote I hate Bush (or Kerry, pick a politician you don't like) and walked around down town in your local city USA with it.

Now take that to China, and try it there using the names of your local politicians, whats going to happen?Frankly, I don't give a damn for politics in China, because the fact is, if you're a Chinese citizen, you wouldn't really care or know who the candidates are. Chinese politics are almost fixed, in a sense. One candidate is bound to win, but who wins is arbitrary.

I'll give you a better explanation when I return. I'm short on time.

it's the reaction that's the key difference. now some of the folks that snuck their way into a pro bush rally not too long ago did get thrown out since in the fears of the secret service (laura bush was speaking when the bush haters bandished their white shirts) that someone was gonna take a pop shot at her threw them out, along with being arrested for some variant of disorderly conduct.

now if i did a pro democracy/anti commie sign board and walked down a street in china, there would be a chance that i'd be arrested and hauled off under the same charge probably.

key difference is the bush haters probably at the worse paid a fine or a day in lock up. now your china arrest is likely to disappear from the world for a few days, hediously harrased for his dear life. depending on the goverment officals who snatched him, he might get off fairly light but with a black mark on his record (i haven't heard of a government that didn't keep a thick black book on people it didnt' like). but then there have been a few folks that are in prision somewhere or have comepletely dissapeared after a democracy rally.

now we all can yell ' i hate bush ' all year long, and nothing happens. the only folks in america that can't go out and walk down a street with a anti bush/anti kerry or anti establishment is the military, being bound by the UCMJ and regulations against that while they're in active duty/reserve status.

the few countries like china and cuba have made communism work to an extent. with china it's become to entrenched into world affairs to really do anything with out the rest of the world finding out about it inside of an hour (CNN, the home of Ted). Cuba doesn't really have a dissetent movement compared to the 1960s. with the clause that gives automatic political asylum to any cuban that can touch american soil, most make the giant swim and dodge the coast guard.

i know someone is going to ask, why would the coast guard have to catch these boat full of cubans/hatians whatever floats their way. first issue is safety since most of those boats aren't overly safe (kinda like running around with scissors), second is international agreement/requirement. the requirement is to catch them, treat them or injuries and figure out where they came from and send them back. most cubans that get sent back catch a lot of hell by the government for the attempt.

if anyone remember lil ellian, he didin't make it to land. hence the losing law suit the US fought to keep him here (it was an example of idelogical actions in that one)

i'll stop and let someone else weight in

Welcome back Ytrok - I see you've flown further off the handle than the last time we saw you.Claiming the US has caused death on the level of communist purges is simply priceless.


You know if ppl were trying to take over the white house, I bet the US would roll out the tanks and national guards too. Tinamen square is like the lawns in front of the white house.

Actually it'd be closer to the Mall in Washington, and here's the really cool part: people have demonstrated there time and again, without the government running them down with tanks.


For one, stop with the racist comments. The next person who brings up any kind of racist comment--even if he or she believes he is qualified to make a comment about his or her own race--in this or any other Ayonae Ro forum will have a moderator note added and a racism warning (3 warning points). Thanks for your cooperation.

...who the fuck are you again?

You aren't a mod or the admin...why don't you concentrate on the discussion and let them patrol the boards?

I saw protestors getting the crap beaten out of them in the US for speaking their minds aswell .. And the difference is?
I figure I should answer this one. There are several reasons that leads to the outcome of officer smith caressing protester joe with a knight stick.


One is with any protest, you get mob mentality. Get one person to shout something and it can get the rest of the crowd rilied up. If a small group is beligerant, it could cascade into a riot.

Second one is that the crowd is already hostile. They showed up hostile and they'll leave hostile. mob mentality carries the anger on.

Third is a small group (like the first example) just up and starts shit with the cops or another group within the protest/rally. Next thing you know, it's a riot.

And it's not always the rally's fault. The same things can happen on the other side of the proverbial siege line. Sometimes a cop is nervous enough as is and you can spook him into firing off a few rubber bullets.

I haven't heard in recent years where the government points to the crowd and say to eachother "jack them up, cops." And after you've been beaten around and hauled off to copland to get booked for disorderly conduct.

I'm taking what limited examples of what happened in china to the more prominent pro democracy/dissetents folks when i say the beat down starts off physicaly and lingers into emotional as they pick apart your life to see what you're plotting, how far along you are in your plans, and how crazy you can be in trying to acheive it.

this kinda repeats one of my others posts earlier. if you proke the guy in power, he's gonna react. the difference is going to be what he's going to do to you exactly.

I'm a bit late to the thread (damn you, Chronotrigger!) But anyhow, China would be thoroughly economically fucked within years if it switched to democracy in anything short of a really gradual transition. I can just picture it:

China becomes democratic and the population controls are repealed. A baby boom.. no, a baby Big Bang shortly takes place. One can expect at least a hundred million babies born within the next few years in excess of the previous growth rate. They must all be raised, cared for, and educated for 16-18 years before they enter the work force.

For any moderately free economy to be self-sustaining, a certain percentage of the population must be in the work force. This is maintained through steady population growth in some countries, and through allowing immigration in the more developed ones. Our hypothetical China had insignificant growth for a while prior to the recent boom, and cannot count on that much immigration.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, it broke up into chunks. China can also expect areas to secede the moment the looming threat of harsh reprisals is put to rest. It won't lose its industrial base, but two problems arise here: a big chunk of farmland will be gone (that's a metric assload of food that will have to be imported), and many of those regions had less severe population controls than the rest of China, so the workforce:population ratio will drop a bit more. This is assuming that there won't be a civil war.

Quality of life in this new China would be way worse than it is now for nearly two decades. Is political freedom worth that to the average person? History says no.

if you're a Chinese citizen, you wouldn't really care or know who the candidates are. Chinese politics are almost fixed, in a sense. One candidate is bound to win, but who wins is arbitrary
Do I even have to go into how wrong that is?

After 6 pages of discussion here, would it not just be best to go against the current US foriegn policy of meddling with every country's affairs and perhaps... I dunno...maybe just leave China the fuck alone? To go further, maybe acknowledge that after thousands of years of self rule, the Chinese just might know what they are doing? They are doing ok and are now solidly a part of the global community. Everyone has too much to lose. So their government is different. Big friggen whoop. As long as they are not threatening to kill us, than so what?

Claiming the US has caused death on the level of communist purges is simply priceless.
Ehh... Probably only because there were not enough native americans to kill off during that time period.

Let's not pretend our country is without blame; we've racial purges and genocide in our history- the good news is that we've come forward since then.

Wow, never thought this thread would go where it has gone.....

In reading what everyone has to say on the subject I think the US's best policy maintain ******d support and at least make China think we would intervene (though in reality we shouldn't, IMO). Continue to build economic ties with both, that China knows would be jeopardized should they invade. Hoping the economic turmoil that would ensue would prevent them from invading. Finally, work for a day when the mainland government has moved to a position where the two can unite with a minimum of disruption (i.e. non-violent), or indepence can be delclared in Taiwan without overly upsetting China.

I don't think you fully grasp the scope of the sum of all communist purges Esbat.

Disclaimer: These comments represent individual opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ayonae.Ro or any of its administration.

During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush made many harsh remarks about China and Sino-U.S. relations. He criticized Bill Clinton for placing China in the center of the United States' Asia policy. He asserted that China is not a strategic partner but a competitor. He also vowed to defend Taiwan's security from an alleged Mainland threat. Many people, including some prominent China experts, are thus worried about the Bush administration's China policy and predict that Sino-U.S. relations are going downhill. The U.S. public is also concerned about possible setbacks in the relations with China in the near future.

Despite President Bush's campaign rhetoric about China, it is hard to imagine that the U.S. and China are drifting apart and confronting each other in the years to come, as both countries have high stakes in the maintenance of a sound and healthy relationship. There are substantial reasons to support this view.

First, the two nations share a long history of close contacts. Though separated by a vast ocean, the two peoples have always been eager to build bridges over the Pacific. Exchanges between the Chinese and Americans date back to well over two centuries. Not long after the United States of America was born, the young nation began to reach out to the ancient, perhaps mysterious, land of the East. In 1784, an American merchant clipper, the "Empress of China", sailed across vast oceans to call on China's southern port of Guangzhou. Almost at the same time, Chinese immigrants began to settle in America and joined the early development of the United States. Today you may find Chinese communities everywhere throughout the States, especially in New York City, Los Angles and San Francisco. They have added unique characters to the diversity of the American society.

By the mid-19th century, tens of thousands of Chinese workers had been employed at the construction sites of America's coast-to-coast railway. About 50,000 Chinese workersperished during that massive and often perilous undertaking. Today, American people still cherish the memory of their contributions:

During World War II, the two peoples fought shoulder to shoulder against Japanese fascism. More than 300 American planes were lost and over 1,000 young American pilots were killed in action in China. The Chinese people will never forget the sacrifices made by these American pilots for this great cause.
During the Cold War, China and the U.S., despite their differences in ideologies and political systems, reached common positions of counterbalancing military expansion by hegemonic powers in Asia and Africa, thus safeguarding regional and global peace and stability. At the height of the Cold War, in 1972, President Nixon made an historic trip to China, which led to the establishment of diplomatic ties in 1979, ushering in a new era of Sino-U.S. cooperation in all areas of bilateral agenda.
Second, the mutual engagement and cooperation between our two countries is a fact of life, not an assumption or a choice that we need to make. The two nations are already closely linked together by an extensive web of cultural, societal, scientific, and commercial ties that bind the two peoples together through countless daily human exchanges. Daily flights between China and the U.S. last year alone carried nearly 200,000 Americans to China and even more (240,000) Chinese to the U.S. Right now over 50,000 Chinese and 3,000 Americans are studying in each other's country. Scientific and athletic exchanges have become more frequent than ever. The latest discovery of the map of human genome is the result of the joint efforts made by scientists from a dozen countries, including the cooperation between Chinese and American scientists. Three top Chinese women soccer athletes joined American teams, and will participate in the coming league play. Transnational marriages between Chinese and Americans are common as people to people contacts increase. Many Chinese provinces and cities have established sister relationships with their U.S. counterparts. Extensive trade and commercial ties have also bound the two nations. Sino-U.S. trade volume has expanded more than 32 times from $2.4 billion in 1979 to nearly $75 billion in 2000, with an annual growth of over $10 billion in recent years. Now the United States is the second largest trade partner of China and China the fourth of the United States.

Flourishing trade and economic links have brought tangible benefits to the two countries. For China, its exports to the U.S. provide nearly one million jobs and for the United States, trade with China supports about 400,000 high-wage jobs at home. The 30,000 or so prospering U.S. corporations in China have also been a major factor in the maintenance of a booming U.S. economy for 130 consecutive months.

Last but not the least, the problem of Taiwan. It is by far the most important and most sensitive issue at the heart of Sino-U.S. relations. First, Taiwan is not an independent state, but an inalienable part of China, even according to the United Nations. It bears on China's sovereignty, territorial integrity and national reunification and touches the national nerves of China's 1.2 billion people. Second, the Taiwan issue is left over by history after the Chinese civil war in the late 1940s. Keep in mind that even the Taiwanese append "R.O.C." after Taiwan. It is the last piece of land controlled by the Republic of China, who fled to Taiwan after the Chinese People's Liberation Army took control of Beijing. The Mainland has been persistently seeking national reunification on the basis of the "One China" principle, which is recognized by the vast majority of countries in the world, including the United States. Third, the problem is that some separatist forces in Taiwan, including the right wing within the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), deny the "One China" consensus and push for separatism. And it should be noted that some forces in the United States are constantly backing the separatists in Taiwan by pledging to defend Taiwan from a so-called Mainland threat and to increase arms sales to Taiwan. This move is extremely dangerous and may precipitate the United States into a regional war. So I sincerely hope the Bush administration will continue to abide by the three Joint Communique and honor the commitments made by both the Republicans and the Democrats to the "One China" principle. This is of vital importance to the stable development of Sino-U.S. relations, and to the protection of American strategic interests as well.

Don't be so quick to judge the United States as the world's pefect nation. Obvious stains on our history include the Vietnam war, civil rights, the gulf war, slavery, Native American relations, Spanish Civil War and the Phillipines. The United States has forcibly annexed the lands of Native Americans many times. The United States has questionably taken control of New Mexico, Arizona, and California. However, the United States has done lots of good, and whether or not they outweigh the bad the U.S. has done will be your own opinion. Consider U.S.'s effort to aid the reconstruction in Europe or Asia after World War II. Those are positive things the U.S. has done and hopefully the same will follow in Iraq.

The more important question is, "Will China actually wage a war against Taiwan?" It's not at all likely, given their intensive mutual trading. I believe they are mostly bluffing, since the three countries--Taiwan, China, and the United States--have so much at stake.

I don't think you fully grasp the scope of the sum of all communist purges Esbat.

Oh, I do. In my book, mass murder is mass murder- when you start going into a quantity, you kind of miss the point.

What is the difference if the US killed 10,000 people and Stalin, Uncle Mao and the Communists killed 500,000,000? Murder is murder. Genocide is genocide.

I'll also stand by my point- it didn't matter if there were 100 Native Americans or 10,000,000,000. The policy of the US government at that time was to get rid of them or box them into reservations as fast as possible- if the US could have assembled the force to knock down all ten billion Native Americans, the policy at the time would have dictated that they do it.

The difference is that Communists murdered their own people. Wanton or ideologically based slaughter is a hell of a lot worse than landgrabbing slaughter, IMO.

'Disclaimer: These comments represent individual opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ayonae.Ro or any of its administration.'

- I think you're over-doing the disclaimer thing there mate.

'The difference is that Communists murdered their own people. Wanton or ideologically based slaughter is a hell of a lot worse than landgrabbing slaughter, IMO.'

- Hold on....there's a lesser of two evils in those choices?
Are you joking?

The difference is that Communists murdered their own people. Wanton or ideologically based slaughter is a hell of a lot worse than landgrabbing slaughter, IMO.
You've got to be joking. Just in case you aren't:

Where do you come down on Taiwan- it will be both a land grab *and* and ideological slaughter.

In fact, almost all "land grabs" come down to an ideological slaughter- our way is better than their way, and we have the ability to take it by force, so we win.

The Communists in the USSR had massive land grabs in Eastern Europe after WWII, and then started their purges.

These comments represent individual opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ayonae.Ro or any of its administration.

Neither Taiwan, China, or the United States want a military conflict. If you consider last year's financial figures, Taiwan increased investment in China by US$4.8 billion (Bloomberg investment data). It brings an interesting situation since everyone is so interwovenly connected.

A lot of you are making an incorrect distinction that the Taiwanese are a culture of their own. Over 78.35% of Taiwan's population are from or are descendents of the Mainland (Taiwanese census data), which include those from Guangzhou, Zhejiang, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hunan provinces. Chinese people don't make such a distinction among other Chinese since almost everyone shares the same customs and culture; nearly everyone is able to speak Mandarin (Taiwan's national dialect is the same as the Mainland's), everyone is able to read Chinese (differences in dialect don't so much matter in the written form in Chinese; however there are simplified and full character forms).

I do think Taiwan will eventually return to China; but it certainly won't be anytime soon. If anything, it will at least be in the form of Hong Kong's reunification as a Special Administrative Region. Remember China's goal is not to annihilate, but rather to integrate. Nobody wants a Civil War; in fact, nobody imagined how well the transfer of Hong Kong to China would go, back in 1995. Given Taiwan's political turmoil and China's current government, right now is not a time that will likely work. China needs more time to develop as a country; the Taiwanese are not ready to return home; and the United States wants an outcome that is favorable to both countries, and most of all, itself. War occurs when there is a failure in diplomacy. So far the Taiwanese, Chinese, and the U.S. Americans are still too busy talking about improving trade and production.

The only moral obilgation our government has is to act in the best interests of our people.

You got to be kidding me. :mad:
Evil greed and selfishness doesn't suddenly become okey just because you wrap a flag around it.

By your logic, Hitlr was right in all he did, except losing the war.

I'd have to go out on a limb and say Hitler wasn't acting in the best interests of his people.

Especially the Jewish ones come to think of it.

You got to be kidding me. :mad:
Evil greed and selfishness doesn't suddenly become okey just because you wrap a flag around it.
Evil greed and selfishness are more often than not in the best interests of the people- as pointed out above.

Calculated selfishness is something we all use *every* day. For example, your national healthcare system might be a drain in terms of taxes, and it might result in doctors who are horribly overworked (as I think Kivorn was pointing out) but the guarantee that everyone who needs it gets medical attention is deemed to be the higher moral ground than working someone to death.

In another example, if you look at a country like North Korea (that wants to play with the big boys and has very little to lose) being a bit selfish in the short term might be the best thing for their people. As long as they don't cross a line and piss the rest of the world off to the point that they get invaded or wiped out the gamble they are taking is that the long term benefits outweigh the short term problems.

If they pull it off, in 70 years their people might not be starving, and they might have a viable economy in the world market. In that time period, how many people are going to remember the coniptions they gave the global community over nuclear weapons? As an example of this: How many people remember the wanton slaughter of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks?

The real issue is that different cultures have vastly different ideas about what is best for their people. Hell, sometimes people in the same geographical area have vastly different ideas about what is best- just look at any one of a dozen African nations.

Funny, I read this article the moment I finished reading this thread. Maybe relevant.

http://www.411mania.com/music/news/article.php?news_id=6162

This is a very interesting topic and I will try to type out my thoughts on this for the next 20 minutes or so before getting back to my homeworks.

1. When people are starving, democracy talks mean complete jack. If I don't have enough food to eat and enough clothes to wear, the first thing of my concern is going to be: give me some damn food and clothing! The whole matter with votes, speech, religion...well, you figure. I would assume this to be true for most other people("give me liberty or give me death!" - patrick henry wouldn't be as meaningful if he's starving.) When we have food, clothing, and shelter, then democracy and human right are certainly going to come up on our priority list. So the first point is: China will probably move toward a more democratic system once they have the basics for the people(at least people will want more freedom); it will certainly not beforehand.

2. Taiwan allowed to leave China means other parts are allowed to do the same. While Taiwan isn't that important as a province, China still would not want a procedent of one of its region leaving. It is not a bit out of hte world to think that Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and probably more regions would start demanding to follow. That is analogous to say South Carolina wants to leave the US because we speak differently compare to the rest of the states. If we do leave, then California may well follow(which will become a top 10 GDP nation in the world, I believe) and so can other states and vote to secede. No sane individual (at least the ruling folks in the US) will have even the slightest agreement on that. So point 2 is: China will NOT want to have any precedent for a part of it to secede.

3. People in China and Taiwan don't really care as much of this as our media makes it. I have always been very interested in the social sciences. I visited Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China this last December. According to the everyday folks I met in Taiwan, they don't really give a damn. The only thing they want to avoid is instability, which is quite understandable. Taiwan has been operating separately from China for over 50 years and its people are very much used to the lifestyle there(actually Taiwan was under martial law for a long while (April 18, 1948 to May 1, 1991) and was not a democracy until then. Most Taiwanese there would want to keep the status quo, although some are eager to maybe travel to mainland China for visits(I think they are already allowed to do that passing thru Hong Kong and for vacation/business purposes). Hong Kong's decline in its economic status is obviously forseen'd(<--if this is a word:D ). Hong Kong has been a port/trading center in Asia. As other regions around it start to open up and blossom, Hong Kong no longer has the status it once held. It is absurd to think that Great Britain or China has anything to do with its rise and fall. I can probably write alot more about British rule of colonial Hong Kong and how the "democracy" there was an appointed viceroy from Great Britain and how much democracy was there in Hong Kong. Capitalism, on the other hand, was the true mother of Hong Kong's prosperity. Now as to China, the people there are more busy with trying to make money (while they can) or staying alive. If you ask a typical Chinese in China if he(or she) prefer Taiwan joining China as one of its province or $10k in cash, I am willing to bet heavily on him(or her) wanting the latter. So my 3rd point is: it's not that big of a deal for much of the involved parties.

I believe that the talks about China/Taiwan are more because of a political nature than that of whatever they claim.

Anyhow, those 3 points seem to be like a chapter in a novel now. Can write lot more and can apply the technique of trimming (thanks to Will Strunk, Jr.) to make it easier to read but I need to get back to my work now.


P.S. I am still paying 71k for a Circlet of Shadow if anyone is selling. :D

This is a very interesting topic and I will try to type out my thoughts on this for the next 20 minutes or so before getting back to my homeworks.

1. When people are starving, democracy talks mean complete jack. If I don't have enough food to eat and enough clothes to wear, the first thing of my concern is going to be: give me some damn food and clothing! The whole matter with votes, speech, religion...well, you figure. I would assume this to be true for most other people("give me liberty or give me death!" - patrick henry wouldn't be as meaningful if he's starving.) When we have food, clothing, and shelter, then democracy and human right are certainly going to come up on our priority list. So the first point is: China will probably move toward a more democratic system once they have the basics for the people(at least people will want more freedom); it will certainly not beforehand.

2. Taiwan allowed to leave China means other parts are allowed to do the same. While Taiwan isn't that important as a province, China still would not want a procedent of one of its region leaving. It is not a bit out of hte world to think that Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, and probably more regions would start demanding to follow. That is analogous to say South Carolina wants to leave the US because we speak differently compare to the rest of the states. If we do leave, then California may well follow(which will become a top 10 GDP nation in the world, I believe) and so can other states and vote to secede. No sane individual (at least the ruling folks in the US) will have even the slightest agreement on that. So point 2 is: China will NOT want to have any precedent for a part of it to secede.

3. People in China and Taiwan don't really care as much of this as our media makes it. I have always been very interested in the social sciences. I visited Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China this last December. According to the everyday folks I met in Taiwan, they don't really give a damn. The only thing they want to avoid is instability, which is quite understandable. Taiwan has been operating separately from China for over 50 years and its people are very much used to the lifestyle there(actually Taiwan was under martial law for a long while (April 18, 1948 to May 1, 1991) and was not a democracy until then. Most Taiwanese there would want to keep the status quo, although some are eager to maybe travel to mainland China for visits(I think they are already allowed to do that passing thru Hong Kong and for vacation/business purposes). Hong Kong's decline in its economic status is obviously forseen'd(<--if this is a word:D ). Hong Kong has been a port/trading center in Asia. As other regions around it start to open up and blossom, Hong Kong no longer has the status it once held. It is absurd to think that Great Britain or China has anything to do with its rise and fall. I can probably write alot more about British rule of colonial Hong Kong and how the "democracy" there was an appointed viceroy from Great Britain and how much democracy was there in Hong Kong. Capitalism, on the other hand, was the true mother of Hong Kong's prosperity. Now as to China, the people there are more busy with trying to make money (while they can) or staying alive. If you ask a typical Chinese in China if he(or she) prefer Taiwan joining China as one of its province or $10k in cash, I am willing to bet heavily on him(or her) wanting the latter. So my 3rd point is: it's not that big of a deal for much of the involved parties.

I believe that the talks about China/Taiwan are more because of a political nature than that of whatever they claim.

Anyhow, those 3 points seem to be like a chapter in a novel now. Can write lot more and can apply the technique of trimming (thanks to Will Strunk, Jr.) to make it easier to read but I need to get back to my work now.


P.S. I am still paying 71k for a Circlet of Shadow if anyone is selling. :D Excellent post, Foreverlive. I agree with most of your points.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3738392.stm

Turnin' up the heat.